The hiring freeze isn't a "campaign reversal" since he implemented it post inauguration.

But as you suggest, both the DNC and RNC should be happy - he is bowing to the status quo and conventional wisdom with these reversals.

But at this point I think his "campaign follow through" is still at least average, and probably higher than average (to the dismay of Global Warming people, among others) Let's see if he decides a wall and job reversal is not needed.

So. I'm at my doctor's office today for something routine, but I managed to make a bit of snark about politics. He very matter-of-factly tells me HIS sources (withveryclosetiestoDCinsiders) all know this:

*Melania and Donald are, for all intents and purposes, estranged, with more public news to follow.

So. I'm at my doctor's office today for something routine, but I managed to make a bit of snark about politics. He very matter-of-factly tells me HIS sources (withveryclosetiestoDCinsiders) all know this:

*Melania and Donald are, for all intents and purposes, estranged, with more public news to follow.

Very believable, given that it is 70-year old Trump that she is married to and she now lives in a different city with their son. And:

This sounds too much like Trump Derangement Syndrome and lowers the credibility of the other two when they are all bundled together.

Actually, it MAY seem the most far-fetched to some, but....if you're a student of human nature, you could have seen this train wreck comin' 4 states away! His mental state has been camouflaged/supported by his extreme wealth.

This sounds too much like Trump Derangement Syndrome and lowers the credibility of the other two when they are all bundled together.

Actually, it MAY seem the most far-fetched to some, but....if you're a student of human nature, you could have seen this train wreck comin' 4 states away! His mental state has been camouflaged/supported by his extreme wealth.

How would you characterize his mental state that will get him removed from office?

This sounds too much like Trump Derangement Syndrome and lowers the credibility of the other two when they are all bundled together.

Actually, it MAY seem the most far-fetched to some, but....if you're a student of human nature, you could have seen this train wreck comin' 4 states away! His mental state has been camouflaged/supported by his extreme wealth.

How would you characterize his mental state that will get him removed from office?

I'd think the 'experts' might have a smorgasbord to choose from:
Sociopath, paranoid, delusional, etc. However, it's not likely to be a simple diagnostic label, as if to commit him to a mental facility. It'll more likely be a scenario where one failed clusterfuck too many suddenly endangers the welfare of our country, and his resistance to respected advisors makes HIM the Clear and Present Danger.

The Democratic pundits and politicians were universally against Trump's every move, until he launched cruise missiles (a reversal of not so much his campaign rhetoric, but his pre-candidate rhetoric). Then, the pundits at least, praised him for launching the missiles. He even wins over the neo-cons and chicken hawks in his own party with that move. Therefore, I predict more cruise missiles will be launched by Trump, and more "mother" bombs and every other kind of bomb the military is itching to use.

"Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition, he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that's delusional," said Dr. Gartner, who is also a founder of Duty to Warn, an organization of mental health professionals who feel Trump is unfit to be president.

During the conference, Psychiatrist and New York University professor James Gilligan said based on his experience working with "murderers and rapists" he can "recognize dangerousness from a mile away."

"Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition, he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that's delusional," said Dr. Gartner, who is also a founder of Duty to Warn, an organization of mental health professionals who feel Trump is unfit to be president.

During the conference, Psychiatrist and New York University professor James Gilligan said based on his experience working with "murderers and rapists" he can "recognize dangerousness from a mile away."

It is explicitly against the AMA code of ethics of psychiatrists to speak to the mental state of public figures they have not examined. I hope all of them are censured.

"Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition, he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that's delusional," said Dr. Gartner, who is also a founder of Duty to Warn, an organization of mental health professionals who feel Trump is unfit to be president.

During the conference, Psychiatrist and New York University professor James Gilligan said based on his experience working with "murderers and rapists" he can "recognize dangerousness from a mile away."

It is explicitly against the AMA code of ethics of psychiatrists to speak to the mental state of public figures they have not examined. I hope all of them are censured.

I agree. As much as I hate Trump, this sort of behavior undermines the entire field. It is irresponsible for a doctor to suggest that these things can be diagnosed from a distance. It is just as bad as the "experts" who were accusing Clinton of having Parkinson's baeed upon videos of her.

"Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition, he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that's delusional," said Dr. Gartner, who is also a founder of Duty to Warn, an organization of mental health professionals who feel Trump is unfit to be president.

During the conference, Psychiatrist and New York University professor James Gilligan said based on his experience working with "murderers and rapists" he can "recognize dangerousness from a mile away."

It is explicitly against the AMA code of ethics of psychiatrists to speak to the mental state of public figures they have not examined. I hope all of them are censured.

I agree. As much as I hate Trump, this sort of behavior undermines the entire field. It is irresponsible for a doctor to suggest that these things can be diagnosed from a distance. It is just as bad as the "experts" who were accusing Clinton of having Parkinson's baeed upon videos of her.

Get a grip, guys. They're not glibly opining on something like cancer (deadly) or HIV (infectious); despite their working knowledge of the "Goldwater rule", they can identify some very obvious pathology at work here AND FELT COMPELLED TO SPEAK OUT. Given their credentials, they're obviously feeling it's important enough to flout conventional ethics.

Who ELSE would be so qualified to say something? We all know the stories of the "crazy" people who end up murdering others, then what?....wring our hands and proclaim with others, "Why was there no mental health intervention?" And the things they claim to observe (paranoia, delusion) are not things one needs complete blood panels, neurological tests or X-Rays to diagnose. [unlike Clinton's alleged "Parkinsons"] These are BEHAVIORAL disorders, manifested in very public patterns.

Not routinely ethical, perhaps, but these are not "routine" times, either: Trump's position as POTUS + Mental Instability= Potentially Lethal Decisions.

"Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition, he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President. If Donald Trump really believes he had the largest crowd size in history, that's delusional," said Dr. Gartner, who is also a founder of Duty to Warn, an organization of mental health professionals who feel Trump is unfit to be president.

During the conference, Psychiatrist and New York University professor James Gilligan said based on his experience working with "murderers and rapists" he can "recognize dangerousness from a mile away."

It is explicitly against the AMA code of ethics of psychiatrists to speak to the mental state of public figures they have not examined. I hope all of them are censured.

I agree. As much as I hate Trump, this sort of behavior undermines the entire field. It is irresponsible for a doctor to suggest that these things can be diagnosed from a distance. It is just as bad as the "experts" who were accusing Clinton of having Parkinson's baeed upon videos of her.

Not just from a distance, but based on edited video.

_________________Why can't we sit in the park like other boys and girls?
Why do we have to walk in the subway tunnel?

Someone who is actually working with the patient in a diagnostic setting. If a doctor notices something which could be a sign of such a pathology, their duty is to let the patient know and have them be offically diagnosed. It is ethically reprehensible for them to discuss this sort of issue with the public as a whole.

Someone who is actually working with the patient in a diagnostic setting. If a doctor notices something which could be a sign of such a pathology, their duty is to let the patient know and have them be offically diagnosed. It is ethically reprehensible for them to discuss this sort of issue with the public as a whole.

And such a doctor as THAT is bound by patient confidentiality.

Why is it okay/ethical for any of us to decide the obvious, that the Aurora bomber, Sandy Hook shooter, et. al., are mentally deranged even before an 'official' diagnosis is rendered, but NOT the POTUS. While there's a fine edge to navigate, we can't decry lack of attention to mental disorder only AFTER terrible deeds are done. Preventative measures from obvious clues are the sane option, imo.

Why is it okay/ethical for any of us to decide the obvious, that the Aurora bomber, Sandy Hook shooter, et. al., are mentally deranged even before an 'official' diagnosis is rendered, but NOT the POTUS.

Because we are not doctors/psychologists. Our opinions do not have the weight of authority.

When a doctor weighs in, they have additional ethical responsibilities. It is not their responsibility to "protect" society from people with mental disorders, especially with the base, surface-level conjecture that is available outside of a diagnostic setting.

Because we are not doctors/psychologists. Our opinions do not have the weight of authority.

Precisely. So it IS up to "doctors/psychologists" to speak out IF WHAT THEY OBSERVE IS OF A DANGEROUS POTENTIAL TO SOCIETY AT LARGE.
Again, these guys aren't novice interns playing a parlor game: I have no doubt they've considered all the risks from every angle. And--have still spoken out.

Do you believe it? The Obama Administration agreed to take thousands of illegal immigrants from Australia. Why? I will study this dumb deal!

...

Quote:

After holding bilateral talks at Admiralty House on Saturday, the Mr Pence and Mr Turnbull appeared before a joint press conference.
Mr Pence confirmed the deal would go ahead, saying: “The US intends to honour the agreement — subject to the US vetting process”.

Not to defend him. But the Magnetic Draw of people falling for his bullshit still holds, despite the foregone conclusion that he COULDN'T make good on his absurd promises, all wrapped up in an insane candidate. THAT'S the 'hard to believe' part, for me. Just yesterday the news still airs interviews of (normal-looking, average)people who still think he's good.

I'm sticking to the things where he's doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.

That is a very good distinction. There are plenty of candidates who promise the moon, but then when all the realities hit them after they win they alter their position, or simply give up on it. What is not common at all is running on one position and then doing something diametrically opposed to their position once they take office.

I'm sticking to the things where he's doing the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.

That is a very good distinction. There are plenty of candidates who promise the moon, but then when all the realities hit them after they win they alter their position, or simply give up on it. What is not common at all is running on one position and then doing something diametrically opposed to their position once they take office.